Representation by Susan Bell
- Date submitted
- 28 April 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a resident of Great Stainton, a rural village that is in the centre of this proposed development and am very worried about several issues that it brings to me, my family, local residents, the surrounding area, and even nationally. It is these worries [REDACTED] from hearing about the proposed development and I know that it will continue to do so in the future that I strongly object to the Byers Gill solar factory. Within the Residential Effects summary, the applicant quotes: 'The on-site substation and associated communications mast, and solar panels, would be the most visible elements of the solar farm. Because of hedgerows, trees and the undulating landscape, the Panel Areas are mostly only visible up to 1.5km away, apart from a few areas where the panels are on slopes, or where occasional higher land in the distance would look across the Proposed Development. From Great Stainton, there would be frequent, close views of the Proposed Development, and it is likely the solar farm would become a key characteristic of the area. Other nearby local areas would be in close proximity to the Proposed Development, which will also experience changes to views and character, including Bishopton.’ This statement acknowledges that the character of the village and the surrounding area will be drastically altered and will be singularly defined by the Solar Farm development to create a long-term eyesore/blight on the landscape. It is my understanding that this is certainly grounds for consideration and that it should not be allowed for that very reason. On the vision map which considers how many of the fields certain areas will be able to see it confirms that Great Stainton, with its elevated status in the region (25 metres above Area B and surrounded to one side by Area C and others at the other side) will be able to see five sites all around. This will completely overtake the rural setting that is there at present. Greg Barker, Minister for Energy and Climate Change (2013) said "Not at any cost, not in any place, not if it rides roughshod over the views of local communities" -this certainly will! The National Planning Policy Guidance dictates that cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that wind turbines and large-scale solar farms can have on landscape and local amenities as the number of turbines and solar arrays in an area increases; We have several wind turbine sites and well as many solar Farms in the local area too. It also recommends encouraging the effective use of land by focusing large-scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value which is present in this area. I would ask that you take both of these factors into consideration. As a farmer's daughter, I take a great interest in what is being farmed locally and how the crops are progressing. Over the last twenty-four years, I have witnessed a variety of crops being successfully grown in a high percentage of the land that is earmarked for the panels and the sub-station. At this time, when the Prime Minister has announced the importance of 'food security' for the country, I cannot understand why Grade 3 (a and b definition is a moving target that swings depending on weather, farmer input, etc. It is highly likely that a grading of 3a would have been given to this land before re-testing for this purpose) food-producing land would be considered appropriate for this venture when there are many brown-filed sites locally that would be more appropriate. Only today UK farmers are warning of food shortages to come as record rainfall this year threatens to bring the first season without a harvest on some farms since the end of the Second World War. Can we really afford to use good-grade arable land when we may well need more to rectify this urgent problem? I am aware also that this land will be tied up for 40 years and then will need at least 5 years to attempt to regain its ability to produce crops, as stated before just because the fields are the most economical way to hook up to the local grid does not mean it is best for the country. The developer has confirmed at a meeting that they will not get hooked up until 2032! Where will farming be as an industry for young people to make their career if we use it all for other industries, even when other alternatives are available? The government has pledged to support UK farming but allowing the cropable land to be taken away is be no means doing that. Para 17 of the National Planning Policy Guidance states that 'Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils and b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland. This land is versatile and there are many areas of local conservational importance. As a land owner, I feel a responsibility to preserve local wildlife and endangered species within the countryside. There are numerous sites designated for ecological interest within the local vicinity of the Proposed Development including Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar, Thrislington Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) including Newton Ketton Meadow SSSI. There are also two Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) including Carr House Pond Darlington LWS which is located immediately adjacent to the Proposed Development. There are protected and priority species within the Order Limits, including breeding and winter birds, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, bats, water vole and otter, badgers and other species such as brown hare and hedgehogs. I have personally encountered hares, bats, hedgehogs, lapwing, pheasant, Snipe, Partridge and deer frequently to name but a few. The disruption caused by two years of development, the destruction of their homes along with the noise levels generated will destroy any chance of resettlement. I feel that I have voiced my main concerns and therefore will not add any more. I do not oppose Solar farms but with those fields already passed for development or being constructed (1300+ acres) in the immediate vicinity I do strongly oppose the Byers Gill proposition as 'utilising the wrong land, far too large (as this will join with others to mean that over 2600 acres are taken up with panels changing the character of the local area) and situated in the wrong place being far too close to people’s homes and villages.